Modification Application Dismissed for Failure to File in All Batch Matters and Unexplained Delay.

The applicants filed an Original Application (OA) in 2013 against the Ministry of Railways.

On 22.01.2018, the Tribunal decided a batch of matters, including the present OA.

Subsequently, the respondents filed Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 2881/2018 seeking modification of the 2018 order.

The respondents failed to file separate modification applications for the other connected matters in the batch.

The respondents filed the application with a considerable, unexplained delay.

Regarding the main OA, the Tribunal issued fresh notices to the applicants on 04.12.2026 after their previous counsel was discharged, but no representation appeared for the applicants during several subsequent hearings.

1. Whether the Miscellaneous Application for modification is maintainable given the procedural lapse of not filing applications in connected batch matters and the lack of explanation for delay.

2. Whether the Original Application (OA) is liable to be dismissed due to the continuous non-appearance of the applicants.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principles of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, specifically regarding the dismissal of applications for default and non-prosecution when a party fails to appear.

It also relied on the principle of Laches and procedural propriety, which requires a party seeking modification of a common order in a batch of cases to file applications in all relevant matters and provide a "satisfactory explanation" for any significant delay in filing.

The Tribunal found the respondents' Miscellaneous Application (MA) procedurally deficient. Since the order of 22.01.2018 covered a batch of cases, the respondents were legally required to file modification applications for all connected matters rather than just the lead case.

The Tribunal noted that the application was filed years after the original order without any justification for the delay, rendering the prayer for modification and condonation of delay meritless.

Regarding the OA, the Tribunal observed that despite discharging their previous counsel and receiving fresh notices, the applicants failed to appear in court over several dates, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.

MA No. 2880/2018 (Condonation of Delay) was dismissed for lack of satisfactory explanation.

OA No. 3476/2013 was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

No order was made as to costs.